JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The sole accused who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of his son aged 3 years is before this Court. 2. The appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2010 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in Sessions Case No.30/2010 has filed this appeal. 3. We refer the parties as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 19.10.2019 at about 3.00 p.m., one Chandrareddy S/o Siddanagouda Dalapati of Village Hattikuni appeared in Yadgir Rural Police Station and filed written complaint. He has alleged in the complainant that on 19.10.2019 at about 2.15 p.m., while he was in the house he was informed that one Bsappa S/o Sharanappa Jaler of his village has committed murder of his son Shivasharanappa, aged around 3 years in his land by assaulting him with a 'noga' (yoke). He immediately along with other villagers went to the land at about 2.30 p.m. and found dead body of the boy Shivasharanappa lying in the land and when they enquired the elder sister of the deceased by name Sridevi aged around 10 years, she told them that, while she along with her two younger sisters and younger brother Shivasharanappa were at their grand parent's house, their father came and took them to the land by offering biscuits to all of them and he took them to the land which is known as "Nagamma Jaler" land, her father assaulted her younger brother Shivasharanappa with a 'Noga' (yoke) on his head as a result her younger brother died at on spot. That, immediately thereafter he came over to police station to lodge the complaint against Basappa S/o Sharanappa of Hattikuni village who committed the murder of his son. On the basis of the said complaint, the P.S.I. Yadgir Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.194/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and filed FIR. The further investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police Yadgir and during the course of investigation, the accused came to be arrested on the same day and after following due procedure of law he was produced before the Court. The further investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police Yadgir and during the course of investigation, the accused came to be arrested on the same day and after following due procedure of law he was produced before the Court. After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before the learned JMFC, Yadgir. 5. The learned JMFC registered the case and secured the accused and furnished copies of the relevant prosecution papers to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.PC and thereafter acting under section 209 of Cr.PC committed the case to the Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. Thereafter, it was made over to Fast Track Court, Yadgir for trial. After receipt of the entire case file, the case was registered and thereafter the case came to be transferred to newly established District & Sessions Court, Yadgir. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, read-over and explained the charge, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case got examined as many as 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and 4 material objects as MO-1 to MO-4. During the course of cross examination of PW10, Ex.D1 was also marked. After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC and recorded his statement. The accused did not choose to lead any defense evidence. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and framed the following points for determination. 1. Whether the prosecution proves that, Shivasharanappa, met with a homicidal death on 19.10.2009 around 2.00 p.m., in the land of the accused situated in the limits of village Hattikuni? 2. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and framed the following points for determination. 1. Whether the prosecution proves that, Shivasharanappa, met with a homicidal death on 19.10.2009 around 2.00 p.m., in the land of the accused situated in the limits of village Hattikuni? 2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, the accused thinking that, his son Shivasharanappa is an hurdle for the sale of land decided to do away with his life and on 19.10.2009 around 2.00 p.m., by taking him to his land situated within the limits of village Hattikuni, with a 'Noga' assaulted on his nose, forehead and committed his murder and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code? 3. What sentence or order? 7. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material on record answered point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and consequently the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge heard the accused on the question of sentence and the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is also ordered that out of the fine amount if recovered a sum of Rs. 40,00/- shall be paid to PW5-Ningamma the mother of the deceased as compensation. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is impugned in this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Shri. Jambayya Swamy Hiremath, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is improper and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. There are no eye witnesses, who state that they have seen the appellant who murdered the deceased Shivasharanappa on 19.10.2009 at about 2.15 p.m. There are no direct witnesses the evidence of PW1 and PW2 has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and in the case on hand circumstances are not fully established. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge erred by way of convicting the appellant which is liable to be set aside. 10. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge erred by way of convicting the appellant which is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant accused took us through the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents produced in the case. The learned counsel submitted that at every stage there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW3 a child witness is set up by the prosecution and her evidence ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge. PW1 Dalapati of village lodged the complaint allegedly on the information given by PW3 and according to him only the accused, PW3 and deceased were in the spot. The learned counsel further submitted that PW4 who is the neighbor of the land of the accused has not supported the prosecution case. PW5 the wife of the accused and mother of the deceased is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments that the evidence of child witness PW3 ought not to have been accepted, 1. Supreme Court of India 18th March 2011 Criminal Appeal No.1289/2005 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another Para No.6 to 11 & 24. 2. Supreme Court of India On 25th February 2014 IN Radhesham Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.593/2005 Para No.7, 8 & 9. Therefore, he submit to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP justifies the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He further submitted that the evidence of PW3 child witness who is none other than the daughter of the accused being eye witness is alone sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder of his son. He further submitted that the trial Court has taken all the care and precaution before accepting the evidence of PW3 as a child witness and as followed all the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned Addl. SPP has relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments. 1. (GOLLA YELUGU GOVINDU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (2008) 16 SCC 769 ) (Sec.118 of Evidence Act-Child Witness- Competence to testify (PARA-11) 2. The learned Addl. SPP has relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments. 1. (GOLLA YELUGU GOVINDU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (2008) 16 SCC 769 ) (Sec.118 of Evidence Act-Child Witness- Competence to testify (PARA-11) 2. (BHAGWANIA V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (2001) CriLJ 3719) (Sec.118 of Evidence Act-Witness-Omission to administer Oath-Does not affect admissibility of evidence, unless judge considers otherwise the witness as incompetent (PARA-21, 22, 27, 28 & 29) 3. (GHEWAR RAM V/S STTE OF RAJASTHAN, (2001) CriLJ 4460) (Sec.118 of Evidence Act-Child Witness- Competency to testify-Depends on witness's ability to understand questions put to him and ability to give reasonable answers to it-Once witness is found competent, his non-competence to take oath or omission to take oath-Neither invalidates proceedings nor renders the evidence inadmissible. (PARA-16 & 17) 4. (KAMLA KANT DUBEY V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2015) 11 SCC 145 ) (B) Sole/Solitary witness-Conviction can well be founded on testimony of single witness if Court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars. (PARA-18) 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for the consideration before this Court are: 1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal and against the material on record and as such is liable to be set aside ? 2. What order? 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 14. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 19.10.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused took his daughters and son Shivasharanappa aged 3 years to his land known as Nagamma Jaler land after getting biscuits to them and thereafter the accused assaulted the deceased Shivasharanappa with an yoke (noga) on the nose and forehead and committed the murder of his son. It is also the specific case of the prosecution that PW3 Sridevi the daughter of the accused was very well present in the spot of the incident and she is the eye witness to the incident. therefore, the accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 15. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined in all 10 witnesses. therefore, the accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 15. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined in all 10 witnesses. PW1 Chandrareddy is the Dalapati of village who lodged the complaint on receiving the information about the murder of the boy on enquiry with the daughter of the accused PW3-Sridevi. 16. Pw2-Sharanappa is the witness to the Inquest Panchanama Ex.P2 and Seizure Panchanama Ex.P3 under which MO1 Noga (Yoke) was seized. 17. Pw3 Sridevi aged 10 years is daughter of the accused and she is the eye witness to the incident. She has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 18. Pw4-Shivappa who is the neighbor of the adjoining of the land speaks regarding disputes in respect of the property. He goes to the spot of the incident after hearing hue and cry of PW3. However, he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. 19. Pw5-Ningamma is none other than the wife of the accused and mother of the deceased. She speaks about frequent quarrel between herself and accused, filing of cases and she visited the spot of the incident after the coming to know the incident and saw the dead body of her son. She has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 20. Pw6 Dr.Asha conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued the report as per the Ex.P6 and she has opined that the death is due to injury on the nose and that the said injury found on the body could be caused with MO1 Noga. 21. Pw7-Md. Gouse, Police Constable carried the FIR and submitted to the jurisdiction Magistrate. 22. Pw8-Najeemuddin is the Junior Engineer, PWD prepared sketch of the scene of the offence as per Ex.P9. 23. Pw9-Rudresh K.P. the then P.S.I. received the complaint and registered the case and handed over for further investigation to PW10 N.Lokesh, then CPI. PW10 after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet. 24. When the charge against the accused is of committing murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution in the first instance has to prove that the death of deceased Shivasharanappa is a homicidal death. Whether death of deceased is homicidal 25. In this regard, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW6-Dr. Asha Anwar and PM report Ex.P6. Dr. Whether death of deceased is homicidal 25. In this regard, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW6-Dr. Asha Anwar and PM report Ex.P6. Dr. Asha has deposed before the Court that on 19.10.2009 at 9.30 p.m. a dead body of a child Shivasharanappa S/o Basavaraj aged 3 years was brought to the District Hospital, Yadgir with a requisition by the I.O. to conduct P.M. examination. Accordingly, she conducted PM examination between 9.45 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. She has further stated as follows. "The body was of a young male child poorly built and nourished with height of 2 1/2 feet, black hair half inch long, eye closed, ears intact, mouth closed. Depression present over the base of the nose. Rigor mortis present over the upper and lower limbs. Peeling of the skin present over the forehead and left fore harm." 26. Further that there was a fracture of nasal bone present. She has given opinion that "I am of the opinion that, death is due to neurogenic shock, as a result of injury to the nose. Time since death is 12 to 24 hours. I have issued a post mortem report in this regard which now I see and it bears my signature. It is marked at Ex.P6 and my signature is at Ex.P6(a)." She has further stated that the injury found on the said body could be caused with a blow given by the "Noga" MO1 shown to her. In her cross examination, she has stated that the fracture at the nasal bone was vertical. On the basis of the nasal bone fracture she has opined the cause of death. Since there was no hemorogic shock, she is of the opinion that the death was due to neurogenic shock. She has denied that she cannot give opinion regarding neurogenic shock as she is not a neuro surgeon. She has denied that there cannot be death due to neurogenic shock. She has also denied that there is no word in medical science such as neurogenic shock. It is further suggested to her that the injury noticed on the dead body could be caused if a running boy falls on a sharp hard object with his face down. Therefore for the first time, the accused has made an attempt to take a defense of accidental fall of the boy with his face down while running on sharp hard object. Therefore for the first time, the accused has made an attempt to take a defense of accidental fall of the boy with his face down while running on sharp hard object. No such suggestion made to other witnesses nor the accused has made such a statement when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC and his statement was recorded. 27. The case of the accused is total denial in this regard. The burden of proving fact especially within his knowledge is on the accused as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. In case his son fell down with his face down while running on a sharp hard object and he was present in the spot, it should have been disclosed by the accused himself, in order to discharge his burden under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Even in the cross examination of PW3 who is examined as a sole eye witness, it is not suggested that the deceased fell down while running and sustained injury. The evidence of PW6 Dr. Asha clearly indicates that the death of the boy Shivasharanappa was due to the fracture of nasal bone and such injury may be caused with a blow given by the yoke produced in MO.1. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the death of deceased Shivasharana is a homicidal death and there is no material to come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is either accidental or suicidal. Whether the accused caused the homicidal deathof deceased Shivasharanappa 28. In order to prove that the accused took his son Shivsharanappa along with his daughters including PW3 Sridevi to his land on 19.09.2009 around 2.00 p.m. with the intention of eliminating his son Shivasharanappa as a hurdle for the sale of the land and assaulted on the nose and forehead of the deceased Shivasharanappa with noke (noga) MO1 and thereby committed the murder of his son, the prosecution has mainly relies on the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5. The burden is on the prosecution to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the accused assaulted his son Shivasharanappa with noga MO1 causing his instantaneous death. PW3 Sridevi is a material witness for the prosecution as she is an eye witness to the incident. She is eldest daughter of the accused aged around 10 or 11 years when examined before the trial Court. PW3 Sridevi is a material witness for the prosecution as she is an eye witness to the incident. She is eldest daughter of the accused aged around 10 or 11 years when examined before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge has noted in the evidence of PW3 at the beginning itself that PW3 being of tender age, it is necessary to put certain questions to her to ascertain as to whether she is able to understand the questions and give rational answers. The learned Judge was satisfied after preliminary questions put to her and her answers on such questions that she was capable of understanding all the questions put to her and she gave proper answers. When she was asked as to importance of oath to be administered in the Court of law, she has stated that she understand the importance of oath to tell the truth before the Court. After satisfying the capability of the witness to depose before the Court, she was administered with oath. During the course of her evidence, she has stated that there used to be quarrels between her father accused and mother in regard to agricultural land and her father used to assault her mother while under the influence of alcohol. 29. She has further stated in the past on one day while they were living in the grand parent's house, her mother had been work to another's land, at that time she along with her two younger sister and her younger brother were at home. On that day, the accused came over to them and asked to them go along with him to their land so stating he took herself two younger sisters and brother to the land by getting them biscuits packet. She has further stated that the accused took them near the motor pump situated in the land where her father assaulted her younger brother with a noga and during the process, the said noga broken into two pieces and her younger brother suffered bleeding injuries on his head and nose and fell down. She has also stated that immediately having seen the accused assaulted her younger brother Shivasharanappa, she ran towards Shivappa who was sowing in the neighboring land fearing that the accused may also assault her and thereafter she came back. Her younger brother Shivasharanappa died immediately. She has also stated that immediately having seen the accused assaulted her younger brother Shivasharanappa, she ran towards Shivappa who was sowing in the neighboring land fearing that the accused may also assault her and thereafter she came back. Her younger brother Shivasharanappa died immediately. She identified the broken noga in MO1 saying that the accused assaulted her younger brother with this noga. She also identified the cloths of her deceased brother. She was subjected to exhaustive cross examination by the learned counsel for the defense. In fact, there is no specific defense put forth in her cross examination, except denying that the death of Shivasharanappa is due to assault by accused, no other suggestions have been made to her as to the cause of death of Shivasharanappa. As already stated even there is no suggestion that Shivasharanappa fell down while running with his face down and sustained injuries. This defense is tried to be made out before this Court. PW3 in her cross examination has clearly stated that she has seen her father and mother quarreling to each other and thereafter they use to join together. Her father killed Shivasharanappa because of the dispute regarding the agriculture land. 30. The learned trial Judge has closely observed the demeanor of this witness throughout her evidence and has recorded that at no point of time the Court felt that either the witness is tutored or trying to state falsehood, she was very well aware that the accused is her father and he was one who was getting them new cloths during festivals. However, she was firm while stating that it is the accused who assaulted her younger brother Shivasharanappa with noga resulting his instantaneous death. 31. The learned counsel for the appellantaccused so for as the evidence of PW3 Sridevi who is the only eye witness, submitted that she is a child witness and the trial Court has not followed the prescribed procedure before administering oath to her and as such her evidence cannot be accepted. On this point, the learned counsel has relied on the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and another stated supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case of In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors. On this point, the learned counsel has relied on the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and another stated supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case of In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) AIR SC 1460, this Court dealing with the child witness has observed as under: "The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial Court may, however, be disturbed by the higher Court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of makebelieve. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness." Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 24 has observed that "A very heavy reliance has been placed by defence counsel Ms. K.Sarada Devi on the statements of defence witnesses, particularly, Radha Bai (D.W.). However, it may be relevant to point out the initial part of her statement made in examination-in-chief: "In view of the witness's age before she was sworn she was asked as under: Q. Are you literate? Have you gone to school for reading? A. No. Q. Do you understand right or wrong? A. I do not understand. Q. Do you understand Saugandh or Sau (Oath or hundred) A. I do not know. Considering the said answers of the witness it appears that the witness does not understand right, wrong or oath, therefore the witness was not sworn." (Emphasis added) In view of the above, we are of the view that it cannot be safe to rely upon her evidence at all." 32. Considering the said answers of the witness it appears that the witness does not understand right, wrong or oath, therefore the witness was not sworn." (Emphasis added) In view of the above, we are of the view that it cannot be safe to rely upon her evidence at all." 32. After referring the questions put to the child witness and her answers to the said questions, no oath was administered. Therefore, it is held that it is not safe to rely upon her evidence at all. However, in the present case it is not so. The learned trial judge has devoted paragraph No.11 to 15 in the judgment for considering and accepting the evidence of PW3 child witness. He has come to the definite conclusion after having observed closely the demeanor of the said witnesses throughout her evidence and at no point of time, he felt that the witness was tutored or that she was trying to state falsehood. Therefore, the learned trial judge has taken all the precautions before accepting the evidence of the child witness. 33. In the case of Radhesham stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "there were other witnesses apart from PW2, the child witness and therefore the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. The story give by PW2-Banwari in the said case was that she saw the incident through the hole of the door is difficult to digest." Under those circumstances, the evidence of the child witness was not accepted in order to convict the accused. But under the circumstances in the said case, benefit of doubt was given to the appellant. Therefore, the two decisions relied on the learned counsel for the appellant-accused will not help the appellant in any way. 34. On the aspect of considering and accepting the evidence of a child witness, the learned Addl. SPP has relied on the decisions referred above. In the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. 34. On the aspect of considering and accepting the evidence of a child witness, the learned Addl. SPP has relied on the decisions referred above. In the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored." In the present case as already observed the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence of PW3 and accepted the same. 35. In the case of Bhagwania stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "The law has also cast duty on the Court while recording the evidence of the child witnesses. The competency to testify depends on the witness's ability to understand questions put to him and to give rational answers to those questions. Once a witness is found to be a competent witness, even if he is not competent witness to take an oath or if there is an omission to take an oath that will not invalidate proceedings or tender inadmissible the evidence. The rule generally is in favour of admission of evidence though the weight to be attached to it will naturally be a matter for consideration by the Court. There is always competency unless the Court considers otherwise." In the present case, the learned trial judge properly appreciated the evidence has come to the conclusion that, she is competent to testify and as such administered oath to her. Therefore, there is no illegality in accepting her evidence. 36. Pw4 Shivappa is the owner of the adjoining land and according to the prosecution, he witnessed the incident from his land at a distance of about 100 to 200 feet. He has not supported the case of the prosecution to the full extent. However, he has deposed in clear terms that on hearing the hue and cry of PW3, he came to the land of the accused and he found that the boy was already dead when he reached scene of offence. He has not supported the case of the prosecution to the full extent. However, he has deposed in clear terms that on hearing the hue and cry of PW3, he came to the land of the accused and he found that the boy was already dead when he reached scene of offence. He has further stated that on the date of incident around 2.00 p.m., the accused had brought all his three daughters and son to the land when he was sowing in his neighboring land. PW4 has also stated that wife of the accused was objecting for disposing of the land. But she had filed the suit against the accused in the civil Court through her children. Therefore, the accused was angry with his wife. However in his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that, he came to know about the murder of Shivasharanappa after reaching the scene of the offence. Therefore, the part of evidence of this witness which supports the case of the prosecution can be accepted. 37. The prosecution is also relying on the evidence of PW5-Ningamma who is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eye witness to the incident, after coming to know the incident, she comes to the scene of the offence and found the body of her son was lying in the land. PW3 her daughter narrated the incident to her. She has admitted regarding the civil suit filed against the accused for partition and separate possession of the share of her children and she had also obtained an order of temporary injunction against the accused from alienating the land. This order was passed on 24.04.2009 and the incident occurred on 19.10.2009. The prosecution has alleged the motive for the murder of the son by the father that the son was hurdle for the sale of the land as his male heir and therefore he decided to do away with his life. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that absolutely, there is no motive at all and the motive as alleged is the creation of the prosecution. When the direct involvement and commission of the act by the accused is proved, the motive becomes insignificant. 38. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that absolutely, there is no motive at all and the motive as alleged is the creation of the prosecution. When the direct involvement and commission of the act by the accused is proved, the motive becomes insignificant. 38. Coming to the evidence of PW1 Chandrareddy, he is the Dalapati of the village and after receiving the information about the murder of the deceased boy himself along with other villagers rushed to the spot and found the dead body of Shivasharanappa lying in the land. On enquiry with PW3 Sridevi, he came to know about the incident and accordingly he lodged the complaint Ex.P1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 intended to purchase the land of the accused. Therefore, he is interested witness. In his cross examination, PW1 has denied that he has got sold 30 guntas of land belonging to the accused along with others. Therefore, he has filed a false complaint against the accused. In case PW1 has already got sold the land of the accused to some other person in the natural course, the accused must have no enmity with PW1. On the other hand, PW1 being the Dalapati of the village, he lodged the complaint after getting information in exercise of his office as a Dalapati. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 cannot be held as tainted with. 39. Pw2 is the witness to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P2 and seizure panchanama at Ex.P3. He has deposed supporting the case of the prosecution and in his cross examination has denied that he has signed the panchanama in the police station. Therefore, there is nothing to reject his evidence. 40. Pw7 Md. Gouse, Police Constable carried the FIR and submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He has deposed to this effect. In his cross examination, he has denied that he submitted the FIR to the Magistrate at 7.15 p.m. instead of 4.00 p.m. Similarly, PW8 Najeemuddin, Junior Engineer, prepared the sketch map of scene of the offence as per the Ex.P9. In his cross examination, he has denied that he never visited the scene of the offence and he has prepared sketch map at the instance of the police. In his cross examination, he has denied that he never visited the scene of the offence and he has prepared sketch map at the instance of the police. PW9-Rudresh K.P. then PSI, Yadgir Rural Police Station on receiving the complaint from PW1, registered the same in Crime No.194/2009 and submitted the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P7 through PW7. In his cross examination, he has denied that he has got created the complaint Ex.P1 and obtained the signature of PW1 and registered a false case. No such suggestion is made to PW1 that the PSI himself got created the complaint and obtained his signature. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 in having discharged his official duty. 41. Pw10- N.Lokesh, then CPI, Yadgir has deposed in detail regarding investigation done by him. He has drawn the inquest panchanama in scene of the offence and thereafter spot panchanama in the scene of offence seized MO1 yoke, recorded the statements of the witnesses, he arrested the accused and got him produced before the Court. After completing the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet. In his cross examination, he has denied that Ex.P1 was not recorded as per the statement of author. In fact Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1 before PW9 and not this witness. He has denied that he has created PW3 Sridevi as an eye witness against the accused. 42. On the reassessment of the entire material on record it become crystal clear that the prosecution has proved that on the date of the incident, the accused took his three daughters and the son Shivasharana to the land with an intention of doing away with the life of his son Shivasharana assaulted on his forehead and nose with yoke produced in MO1 and committed his murder. It is proved by the prosecution that the death of the deceased Shivsharana is a homicidal death and the accused and accused alone is responsible for the homicidal death of his son Shivsharana, by examining PW3 Sridevi none other than daughter of the accused being eye witness. On the other hand, absolutely there is no defence at all on behalf of the accused. On the other hand, absolutely there is no defence at all on behalf of the accused. Nothing was suggested to PW3 Sridevi that the death of the deceased is accidental and there is no suggestion that the deceased fell down while running, his face down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injury. As already stated the accused had an opportunity to explain or make his defence when he was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The accused remained silent and denied the entire case of the prosecution. 43. Further the burden was on the accused to prove the facts especially within his knowledge as provided under Section 106 of Evidence Act. It is the accused, PW3 and the deceased who were all present in the spot of the incident and therefore apart from the accused, it is PW3 alone who has to narrate the incident which she has fully narrated in her evidence before the Court and absolutely there is no fault with the learned trial judge in appreciating her evidence and accepting the same after having taken all the precaution and after observed the demeanor of the said witness throughout her evidence. Under these circumstances, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Further, we make an observation that this is an unfortunate case of murder of 3 years old son by his own father. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the negative and the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2010 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in Sessions Case No.30/2010. Ordered accordingly.